McCrimmin v. Cooper
| Citation | 27 Tex. 113 |
| Parties | JOHN MCCRIMMIN AND OTHERS v. JOHN COOPER. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The payment of a voluntary subscription, on the faith of which expense has been incurred or legal liabilities assumed, may be enforced.
To recover on a subscription paper, it is necessary to show a substantial compliance with the terms offered by the subscribers; that the labor, etc., was performed on the faith of the subscription and within a reasonable time, as well as in the manner contemplated.
In a suit on a subscription list for building a bridge, no time being specified, held, that performance after twelve months delay was not within reasonable time, and that without proof of assent to the delay the subscribers would not be bound.
APPEAL from Cherokee. Tried below before the Hon. R. A. Reeves.
This suit was originally brought in a justice's court, by the appellee, John Cooper, against John McCrimmin and others, appellants, on a subscription paper for building a bridge, to which appellants were subscribers. There were two jury trials before the justice, both resulting in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff then removed the cause by certiorari to the district court and obtained judgment, from which the defendants appealed.
On the trial plaintiff proved by Benjamin Johnston, that in the summer of 1857 he had a subscription paper drawn up, to which were signed the names of the plaintiff and defendants and others, each promising to “pay the several amounts annexed to their names, to any person or contractor who might thereafter build a free bridge across Mud creek, at the place known as the Burnt Bridge, on the road leading to Henderson, Rusk county.” That witness held the subscription a while; that the subscription list was to be delivered to any person who might build said bridge mentioned in the subscription; that no time was specified in the subscription in which the bridge was to be built; that he understood it to be the understanding to have the bridge built as soon as they could get some person to build the same; that a time was appointed to let out the contract for building the bridge, and witness was at the place at the time appointed, when and where the said parties were to meet and let out the contract. That no persons were present except himself and Medlock, one of the defendants, and two others. That witness had the subscription with him, and remarked at the time that he would have nothing more to do with it. That he took the subscription home with him, and kept it until the plaintiff, Cooper, built the bridge. That in the summer of 1858, the plaintiff, Cooper, asked witness if he still had said subscription, and told witness that he had a notion of, or would build the bridge, if witness would give plaintiff the subscription. That witness offered plaintiff the subscription at the time, but plaintiff told him he did not want it until he had built the bridge. That after plaintiff had built the bridge, in the fall of 1858, witness delivered the subscription to plaintiff. That the bridge was built across Mud creek at the place known as the Burnt Bridge.
Turentine, for defendant, testified that when plaintiff commenced getting timbers for the bridge, witness passed along, and Cooper, the plaintiff, told witness that he was going to build the bridge, and witness asked plaintiff how he was expecting to be paid? Plaintiff replied that he would ask the neighbors for help, who, he supposed, would pay something; and if they did not, he would apply to the county court for pay; and that if the court refused to pay him, he was independent of the neighbors and the court; that he owned the land on both sides of the creek, and that he would build the bridge and erect a toll gate, and being thus the owner of both land and bridge, he would charge people for passing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose v. San Antonio
...after any such expenditure of labor or money has been made. Hopkins v. Upshur, 20 Tex. 89;Doyle v. Glasscock, 24 Tex. 200;McCrimmin v. Cooper, 27 Tex. 113. II. But we take it that the real character of the obligation sued upon in this case is that of a conditional promise, which became bind......
-
White v. Crosby
...is incurred or legal liabilities assumed, may be enforced. Hopkins v. Upshur, 20 Tex. 89; Doyle v. Glasscock, 24 Tex. 200; McCrimmin v. Cooper, 27 Tex. 113; Williams v. Rogan, 59 Tex. 438; Railway Co. v. Neely, 64 Tex. 344. While that doctrine is well established, in none of the cases cited......
-
Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Lindsey
...is bound also, because there is now a promise for a promise, with entire mutuality of obligation.' 1 Pars. Cont. § 450." In McCrimmin v. Cooper, 27 Tex. 113, the suit was upon an instrument by which the subscribers bound themselves "to pay the several amounts annexed to their names to any p......
-
Cooper v. McCrimmin
...to in the opinion, otherwise than by a quotation, this case was before this court on a former appeal, and will be found reported in 27 Tex. 113. On the present trial there was evidence, which is adverted to in the opinion, tending to show acquiescence by defendant in the delay of the constr......